Re: [boost] [CMake] what to do now?

Subject: Re: [boost] [CMake] what to do now?
From: Paul Fultz II (pfultz2_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-04-14 13:19:34

On Thursday, April 14, 2016 at 11:51:51 AM UTC-5, Edward Diener wrote:
>
> On 4/14/2016 9:55 AM, Paul Fultz II wrote:
> >
> >> On Apr 14, 2016, at 8:31 AM, Paul Fultz II <pfu..._at_[hidden] 
> <javascript:>> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Apr 14, 2016, at 6:01 AM, Peter Dimov <li..._at_[hidden] 
> <javascript:>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> P F wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Does lightweight_test depend on something else? If so, 
> lightweight_test could be moved to a separate module. This way Boost.Config 
> would depend on Boost.LightweightTest and Boost.Core would depend on 
> Boost.Config and Boost.LightweightTest.
> >>>
> >>> lightweight_test depends on Config for BOOST_NO_EXCEPTIONS, used in 
> BOOST_TEST_THROWS. I thought about moving it to Assert, which seems like a 
> logical place for it, but Assert depends on Config for BOOST_LIKELY.
> >>
> >> Since Boost.Config only uses it for BOOST_TEST, it easy enough to just 
> write:
> >>
> >> #define BOOST_TEST(x) if (!(x)) { std::cout << “FAILED”; std::abort(); }
> >>
> >> However, Boost.Config's test still depends on type traits.
> >
> > Well actually Boost.Config could use Boost.TypeTraits when 
> BOOST_NO_CXX11_STD_ALIGN is defined, otherwise it could use the standard 
> type traits. This would at least get rid of the cycle on modern compilers.
>
> I think that should be BOOST_NO_CXX11_HDR_TYPE_TRAITS rather than 
> BOOST_NO_CXX11_STD_ALIGN.
>

Yes, even better. Thanks.
 

>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>
>